Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Shooting area checkpoints?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Shooting area checkpoints?

    While this one happened in Arizona, itr was conducted by the Feds. So it apply s to all of us potentially.

    http://www.infowars.com/drivers-ques...al-checkpoint/

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    210

    Re: Shooting area checkpoints?

    A “Constitution-free zone” which includes areas within 100 miles of the border has been put in place which authorizes US Border Patrol agents to set up checkpoints targeting two thirds of Americans who live within this buffer zone.
    Constitution-free zones??? This is legal???

    If the zone is "constitution-free" then can I also assume it is "law-free" and use force to defend ourselves?

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouse View Post
    Constitution-free zones??? This is legal???

    If the zone is "constitution-free" then can I also assume it is "law-free" and use force to defend ourselves?
    Well, since the Constitution is an ENABLING document -- the one which grants certain powers to the Federal government -- in a true "Constitution-free" zone, no Federal authority, power or laws exist.

    Take a ruler and a map, and look at some of the places inside that 100-miles-from-the-border. Two of the three Interstate highway bridges across the Colorado River at the AZ/CA border, most of I-10 in Arizona, all of I-8, Arizona's second-largest metropolitan area and city . . .

    However, knowing the Infowars site, I am going to assume that "Constitution-free" is their interpretation of an executive order or other action taken by the Feds.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Drivers who are asked questions and threatened with searches at these checkpoints are refusing to co-operate in increasing numbers, citing the Fourth Amendment. Some are allowed to go on their way while others, like retired San Diego social worker Vince Peppard and his wife, are having their vehicles ransacked against their will....from link


    An attempted ransacking of my vehicle w/o cause ? Never gonna happen.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    Utterly and completely illegal. See Indianapolis v. Edmond. All 250 people seized should join in a class action suit for deprivation of civil rights under color of law.

    Also goes to show, "Don't talk to the police."

  6. #6
    Regular Member CSINEV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    North Las Vegas
    Posts
    33
    U.S. Court Gives Thumbs-Up to Snoopy Checkpoints Near-ish the Border
    J.D. Tuccille|Apr. 5, 2012 2:45 pm

    A recent federal ruling in Arizona reinforces the growing use of border stops conducted far from the border, and intended for border security purposes in general, and immigration control in particular, to enforce pretty much any law of interest to the federal government. This, points out theNewspaper.com, despite a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that such roadblocks aren't supposed to turn into criminal fishing expeditions.

    Experienced travelers know that one of the peculiar attractions of motoring through the desert Southwest is the time spent in contemplative meditation under the warm sun, along a stretch of dusty, beer-bottle-festooned Interstate, waiting to be briefly questioned and then (hopefully) waved through a roadblock by sweaty Border Patrol agents tens of miles from anyplace that might reasonably be represented on a map by a thick, dotted line.

    Such restful interludes come courtesy of the "border search exception," which holds that there's an escape clause from the Fourth Amendment, maybe written in invisible ink on the back of the Constitution, allowing for warrantless searches of travelers within 100 miles of the border. Why 100 miles? That appears to be an executive-branch riff on Supreme Court decisions, such as United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, holding that "[a]utomotive travelers may be stopped at fixed checkpoints near the border without individualized suspicion, even if the stop is based largely on ethnicity." The exception holds, writes the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, in the recent case of US v. Ruiz-Perez (PDF), because "Immigration checkpoints such as the one at issue in this case serve a public interest in securing the border."

    Public interest? Oh. Well, of course.

    Summarizing the case, theNewspaper.com writes:

    On January 19, 2011, Omar Ruiz-Perez, a commercial truck driver, was hauling produce from a warehouse in Rio Rico, Arizona to Los Angeles, California for the MRM Xpress trucking company. At around 8:30pm, he hit the roadblock on Interstate 19 located twenty-five miles from the actual border with Mexico.

    Border Patrol Agent Christopher Thornton stopped him, and Ruiz-Perez explained that he was a US citizen and provided copies of his bill of lading, as requested. Thornton claimed the truck's US DOT number was "suspiciously high" and the truck's paint was not pristine. He asked if he could look in the back of the truck, and Ruiz-Perez said he did not care. Agents x-rayed the truck and found a hidden compartment containing drugs.

    Whoopsies.

    In upholding the stop and subsequent search and arrest over the defendant's objections, Judge Jennifer G. Zipps insists, "the gravity of the public concerns served by the I-19 Checkpoint are high, the checkpoint was reasonably related to these concerns, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty was minimal."

    In 2000, in the case of City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Supreme Court had ruled against all-purpose vehicle checkpoints, saying, "[w]e cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime."

    But Judge Zipps gives the roadblock in this case a pass because it was billed as a border checkpoint within that magic 100-mile zone around the perimeter of the country -- a "Constitution-free zone," warns the ACLU, that includes nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population.

    See theNewspaper.com's full story here.
    [[FONT=Book Antiqua]]I LOVE MY GOD, MY COUNTRY, AND MY CONSTITUTION. GIVE IT BACK!

  7. #7
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    While this one happened in Arizona, itr was conducted by the Feds. So it apply s to all of us potentially.

    http://www.infowars.com/drivers-ques...al-checkpoint/
    The way to handle that checkpoint is to drive up close, make a U turn, and drive away.....hopefully some of them will follow and illegally detain you.

    Or just refuse to let them look in the vehicle on your way out. That usually gets a good case of "contempt of cop".
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by CSINEV View Post
    Thornton claimed the truck's US DOT number was "suspiciously high"
    Well, then, it evens out, because the IQ of most Federal agents is suspiciously LOW.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •